The reluctance of some schools to identify their "gifted and talented" students seems to be a throwback to the time when there was a view that differentiating pupils in any way would sentence some to failure. Interestingly, I've never come across a school that resisted identifying those pupils with special educational needs or held back from fighting for extra resources or additional opportunities that could help the child's progress. Quite right, too, yet some schools hesitate to similarly identify those who are especially gifted and talented.

Yes, the government's gifted and talented programme has a clumsy title, and there is always going to be a debate about how many students to include, what the criteria should be, and who should make the decision and when - but so there is with SEN. The overpowering reason for a gifted and talented programme of any sort is that there is still significant underperformance in this group. It shows not just in exam results, but in disaffection and poor behaviour as well.

Having said that, the government's recent decision to include in performance tables the number of gifted and talented pupils each school has identified seems to serve little purpose. It risks creating yet another row about league tables, which will inevitably be a distraction from the more important debate of how to provide the most appropriate, tailored and targeted support for this group.

Furthermore, it would be a mistake to ever think that the only gifted and talented young people are those who have the potential to excel academically. There is a danger that our habit of valuing the performance tables above all else might lead to that.

If ever there was any doubt about the need for some cultural change in this area, it should be dispelled by the recent report from the Sutton Trust. The trust revisited its research into the attitudes of state school teachers to Oxford and Cambridge universities.

Almost half of teachers asked said that they didn't recommend their most able students to apply to Oxbridge. Nine out of 10 teachers underestimated the number of Oxbridge students who had attended state schools, with the majority of teachers putting it lower than 30% - it's 54%.

I don't in any way excuse universities that have a history of being perfectly happy to recruit from independent schools and ignore the talent in the state sector, but attitudes are changing and things are happening. It's pointless complaining about educational disadvantage and elitism if the perception doesn't match reality.

The irony is that, because they are better funded, Oxford and Cambridge are able to give their students the sort of personal and academic support that working-class pupils need: small groups, regular tutorials, a supportive personal tutor system, and strong college identity. As long as able state-educated pupils don't apply to Oxbridge, these advantages will continue to disproportionately benefit students from independent schools.

What's more, the arguments that are so often made for getting more bright working-class students to Oxbridge can be made equally for getting more talented working-class students to Rada, the Royal College of Music or the Royal College of Art.

Yet if we've learned anything over the years, it is that these things don't happen by themselves. We have to make them happen. Encouraging each child to reach his or her potential is a hackneyed, overused phrase, but its sentiments hold good.

Rough at the edges though it may be, the gifted and talented programme is the first attempt to have a national strategy that will support our most gifted children in whichever school they find themselves. The Sutton Trust's report shows how much it is needed.